University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership,
Education & Communication Department
Agricultural Leadership, Education &
Communication Department
January 2005
Becoming a Professional Engineering Educator: A New Role for a Becoming a Professional Engineering Educator: A New Role for a
New Era New Era
L. Dee Fink
University of Oklahoma
Susan Ambrose
Carnegie Mellon University
Daniel W. Wheeler
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
, dwheeler1@unl.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub
Part of the Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons
Fink, L. Dee; Ambrose, Susan; and Wheeler, Daniel W., "Becoming a Professional Engineering Educator: A
New Role for a New Era" (2005).
Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Education &
Communication Department
. 38.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/38
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication
Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty
Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Becoming
a
Professional Engineering
Educator:
A
New Role for
a
New
Era
L.
DEE
FINK
Instructional Development Program
University of Oklahoma
SUSAN
AMBROSE
EberZy Center for Teaching Excellence
Carnegie Mellon University
DANIEL WHEELER
Ag Leadership, Education and Communication
University
ofNebraska
-
Lincoln
Engineering education faces significant challenges as it seeks to
meet the demands on the engineering profession in the twenty-
first century. Engineering faculty
wiU
need to continue to learn
new approaches to teaching and learning, which in turn will
require effective professional development for both new and
experienced instructors alike. This article explores approaches to
effective professional development and provides a conceptual
framework for responding to the challenge of becoming a
professional engineering educator. The "cycle of professional
practice" is introduced as a prelude for identifying what
individual professors and their institutions can do to generate
more powerful forms of engineering education. The article
concludes with two case studies that illustrate the possibilities
when faculty and academic leaders join together in addressing
calls for change.
Keywords:
faculty development, professional development, engi-
neering education
In the first half of the twentieth century, engineering education
focused primarily on the application of techniques. Laboratory
problems were constructed with practical problems in mind.
Following World War
11,
engineering educators realized that their
students needed more than techniques; they needed to understand
the science underlying the techniques. This led to curricula that
included more science courses and a greater focus on theoretical
problems
[I]. During the last decade of the twentieth century,
however, calls emerged for yet another round of major reforms and
a new kind of engineering education. In this article we first discuss
the need for a new kind of engineering education. We then discuss
how individual engineering educators can respond and how institu-
tions can support their effort, and we present two case studies that
illustrate how individual and institutional efforts can improve
engineering education. We conclude by proposing some directions
for research and other actions in professional faculty development.
The mid- to late 1990s produced a number of now well-known
reports calling for reform not only of engineering education
[2-61,
but also of undergraduate education at our nation's research univer-
-
sities [7]. The titles themselves convey a consistent message of the
need for major educational transformation:
Engineering Education
for a Changing
World Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive
System; Restructuring Engineering Education:
A
Focus on Change;
Shaping the Future; Transforming Undergraduate Education in Sci-
ence, Math, Engineering and
Technoloa;
and
Reinventing Under-
graduate Education.
These reports call for curricula that are relevant
to the lives and careers of students, attractive to all types of students,
and connected to the needs and issues of the broader community
[2]. They call for curricula that include integrated and experiential
activities and early exposure to engineering
[2-41; provide an inter-
disciplinary perspective
[3-51; address different learning styles
[2-51; focus more explicitly on skills such as problem-solving, com-
munication, team and leadership, and life-long learning
[2-51; em-
phasize the social, economic and, environmental impact of engi-
neering decisions
[2-41; take a systems approach [2, 31; stress
design
[3,4]; and incorporate ethics [2]. Further, they call for these
changes to be informed by cognitive science and educational re-
search
[3] and to educate students for life by helping them learn
how to learn
[2-41.
These are significant challenges. They remind us that students
and their learning should be the focus of the educational process
-
[4]. They require a redesign of the curricula, courses, and classroom
pedagogy in ways that cause us to
reframe the roles of faculty and
students in the educational process
[8-121, i.e., to rethink our
"mental model" of teaching and learning
[3-51. Similarly, these
challenges cause us to
reframe our thinking about the importance of
institutional support. For example, a recent National Research
Council report called for universities to create both general and dis-
cipline-based teaching and learning centers to support faculty in the
creation of innovative courses and pedagogy
[6,
p. 91. In the end,
however, the individual engineering educator must take the initia-
tive, and institutions must support and value these individual
efforts.
In their work as researchers, consultants, and professional engi-
neers, engineering faculty follow a pattern of practice we call the
January
2005
Journal of Engineering Education
185
"cycle of professional practice" (Figure
1
(a)). In this cycle, engineer-
ing faculty continually
expand their technical knowledge and develop
new competencies. Their work involves
identifylng, modeling, and
analyzing engineering problems; generating, implementing, and
evaluating solutions; and disseminating their work in the engineer-
ing literature
1131. Over time, this process leads to greater technical
knowledge and better practices within the engineering community.
This is the means by which engineering faculty traditionally further
their technical professional development.
The cycle
of
professional practice is equally applicable to address
the challenges facing engineering education where the focus is to solve
educational
problems rather than
engineering
problems (Figure
1
(b)).
Thus, the
cycle begins by first identifylng the educational problems.
The generation, implementation, and evaluation of solutions
should take advantage of the body of knowledge in the cognitive
sciences and educational research [3] as well as knowledgeable
educational experts, a resource often found in campus teaching and
learning centers
[6]. The cycle concludes by disseminating the
results so that they may be adapted and used by others. Through
this cycle of professional practice, engineering faculty members can
create a new and more
powerfd form of engineering education.
"Expert teachers" possess knowledge in three areas: content knowl-
edge
(i.e., their disciplinary expertise), pedagogical knowledge (e.g.,
how students learn, what types of pedagogy are most effective for cer-
tain learning goals), and pedagogical-content knowledge
(e.g., how to
recognize and correct students' misconceptions
in
the domain, how to
demonstrate procedures and methods used in the discipline, how to
explain particular concepts
within
the content area). However, exper-
tise in
any
domain is developed through years of practice (ten years is
the often-cited number
[14-161) and teaching is no different. It is a
skill that can be learned and improved with the right information, ap-
propriate practice, and directed feedback
[I 6-1 81.
An
increasing
number of engineering educators are sharing valuable approaches,
strategies, and techniques on teaching and learning
[19-281.
The focus of this paper, however, is not about teaching tech-
niques. Instead, its purpose is to offer a new way to think about the
development of the professional engineering educator. In some re-
spects we focus on meta-cognition, that is, we focus on the cogni-
tive processes that faculty follow as they learn more about teaching
[8]. In this regard, they often work their way through three increas-
ingly sophisticated stages of development.
A.
Enhance Common Teaching Techniques
When faculty members begin teaching and observe things they
deem problematic,
e.g., students not attending class, not doing the
homework, not understanding the material, or not performing well
on exams, their first response is often to work on improving their
teaching techniques,
i.e., to learn more about the nuts and bolts of
teaching. At this stage faculty might ask how they can make their
lectures more interesting and engaging, how they can write better
exams, or how they can best use technology to enhance their lec-
tures
[29,30].
There is much to learn about teaching techniques. However, at
some point, many faculty realize that no matter how well they
Society: Engineering
Educator:
Society:
Professional
Knowled e and
Competence: What is possible?
Represent Problem What is desirable?
(
ontinng
)
,
,
Professional Professional
Development Development Analyze problem to
be solved.
Professional Community:
Professional Community
College
Teaching, Engineering Education
Literature
Literature
Patterns of current best
practice
Patterns of current best
practice
Artifacts associated with
professional practice
Artifacts associated with
professional practice
t
t
Share results from the
engineer's "Experience of
Practice"
(=
Scholarship of
Engineering)
(=
Scholarship of Teachinx
&
Learnin@
solution fit the initial need, situation
(a>
Co)
Figure
I.
Cycle ofproferrionalprartice: (a)pmfessionaZengineer;
(b)prOfessionalenginepring
educatm.
186
Journal
of
Engineering
Education
January
2005
lecture or write their exams, a gap still exists between student perfor-
teaching strategy. Two general strategies that many educators have
mance and faculty expectations. When this happens, faculty often
found valuable are team-based learning (TBL)
[49] and
move to the next level: examining what constitutes effective
teach-
~roblem-based learning (PBL) [SO].
ing, what defines deep-level learning, and what characterizes
ap-
Engineering educators who become more knowledgeable about
propriate faculty and student roles in the process.
the learning process find that it allows them to engage in a higher
order of problem solving. Instead of focusing on questions like
B.
Understand the Science and Principles of Learning
"How can
I
improve my lectures?" they now explore questions like
and
Teaching
"How can
I
integrate and
align
active learning and assessment into my
While learning more about teaching techniques helps
instruc-
courses to generate more sophisticated and sigrdcant leaming?"
tors to be more effective at what they are
already doing, understand-
However, even when an instructor develops and implements
ing
thepiinciples of learning and how they impact teaching can help
strategies that have proven to be effective, something may
stiu be
them create new and more
powerfid forms of learning. In other
missing; the spark and energy of exciting teaching and learning may
words, the problem may not be that the instructor is a poor lecturer,
still not be there. When this
happens, the instructor may need to
but rather that lecturing is not the best way to engage students in
explore the next level of learning.
the learning process.
Initial inquiries on the principles of learning may focus on fun-
C.
Explore the Humanistic DimensionofEducation
damental issues: how people learn [18, 311, how students process
Ultimately, teaching is an action
with
a ~rofound human dimen-
information [32], how prior knowledge affects learning, what we
sion. Being a responsible contributor to this process requires that we
know about the impact of organization on the
ability to retrieve and
try to understand our own-and our students-passions, motiva-
use information flexibly
113-15,17,18], or on the varied
ways
that
tions, and life experiences. As basketball great Michael Jordan once
different individuals learn
[31-371. Following naturally fiom these
said, "There is more to basketball than basketball," meaning that we
more general issues are more
specific questions about learning goals,
have to understand ourselves, our teammates, and the other players,
including what different kinds of knowledge would constitute
sig-
i.e., the human dimension of the game, to play well. Similarly, when
niftcant learning for students. For example, psychologists have dis-
professors pursue this dimension of teaching, there are a number of
tinguished among declarative knowledge (define and describe),
issues they can explore.
They can ask themselves what unique "hu-
procedural knowledge (how learners use or apply declarative
knowl-
manity'' they bring to the teaching and how they can use that hu-
edge), structural knowledge (how concepts in a domain are
interre-
manity to teach in an inspired and inspiring way. They explore ways
lated), and contextual knowledge (when to access certain principles
to share their passion for their subject with students who are often
or concepts and when to use certain procedures)
[37]. Different tax-
very different from us, their teachers [Sl-541. Instructors must ask
onomies of learning exist that can help faculty more clearly define
how they can more
fully
understand and relate to students as human
measurable goals that can then guide the design of courses
[38-403. beings. Research indicates that this generation of students (some-
Defining goals inevitably leads to a discussion of both how to
times called the "rnillennials") is very different
fiom past genera-
achieve those goals (in and out of class activities) and how to
mea- tions, and to be effective instructors we need to understand how and
sure whether students have met those goals. In
this vein, faculty why they are unique [55,56]. What (and how) can instructors learn
often ask what "active learning7' real4 means and why research indi- about their students' potential and needs as human beings in a way
cates that the more active the
studentp are the deeper their under- that is appropriate to the role of an educator [57]?
standing
will
be. They want to know, for example, how and why At the apex of this dimension, teachers think about learning and
specific kinds of learning activities help students
faulttate the stor-
life and what they can do to help students see the central role of
age of information in long-term memory and create a stronger
rep-
learning in life (referring here to both course-based and life-based
resentation and multiple avenues for retrieval
[18,34,41-441.
learning) [58,59].
An
abundance of research clearly indicates that
Because goals and learning activities must be aligned with
as-
various dimensions of personal growth and change occur during a
sessment
[45], at this stage consultants and faculty often discuss
student7s college experience and it also shows that educators impact
how to create assessment activities that
support high-quality stu-
this growth and development often without even reahzing it [60,
dent learning (rather than just giving a basis for assigning grades),
611. Educators should have an awareness of their "growth edges,"
what
is often referred to as educative assessment [46]. This includes
i.e., those aspects of teaching where they feel uncertain and in need
decisions on how to provide information on students' strengths and
of new and better ideas to guide their actions.
mastery of material, as well guidance on how to improve under-
An awareness that there is much to be learned can be both excit-
standing and performance.
Students need feedback on their learn-
ing and daunting. While the amount of information available can
ing that allows them to grow as learners and sharpens their under-
be overwhelming, the path to expertise is traversable and there are
standing of specific subject matter. This feedback can come
from
people, e.g., faculty developers, engineering colleagues, available to
the teacher, other students, and their own self-reflection
[46-481.
help with the journey.
Another important aspect of effective teaching is to integrate the
major components of a course (learning goals,
teachingAearning ac-
tivities, feedback, and assessment)
[38J. These three components
V.
TEACHING
AND
LEARNING
RESOURCES
need to support and reflect each other in a coherent teaching strate-
gy.
That is, the combination and sequence of leaming and assessment
A survey by the SUCCEED Coalition in
1997-98 found that
activities should build energy, engage students, and allow the learn-
engineering faculty are interested and do
partiripate in activities
ing to dwelop and grow stronger as the course proceeds.
An
educa-
aimed at increasing their effectiveness as professional engineering
tor can create his or her own teaching strategy or adopt a general
educators
[62]. Sixty percent of the respondents in that survey
January
2005
Journal
of
Engineering Education
187
indicated a change in the way they teach as a result of their partici-
pation in SUCCEED workshops and seminars. Many colleges and
universities have campus-based programs to help faculty develop as
professional educators, and some colleges of engineering, as well as
national organizations, have created centers and programs dedicated
specifically to engineering education.
A.
Campus-Based Programs
Beginning in the late 1960s, a number of institutions established
on-campus programs to help faculty and/or graduate students learn
about college-level teaching. Today it is estimated that approxi-
mately 25 percent of all institutions offering at least a
four-year pro-
gram have a
teaching/learning center; nearly 60 percent of all re-
search universities have one; and the total number of institutions
with such programs is increasing each year
[63]. Though program
names vary-instructional development program, center for teach-
ing excellence, center for teaching and learning-their goals and ac-
tivities have a great deal in common.
Campus-wide faculty development programs have traditionally
offered three types of services: individual teaching consultations,
workshops, and support for personal development
[64]. In individual
consultations faculty members work with instructional consultants to
plan and deliver teaching consistent with their goals and based on
learning principles, their particular student population, the size of the
class, the faculty member's style as a teacher, etc. The consultants help
faculty examine what they want students to learn and then explore
what materials, media, and teaching strategies
will
most effectively
support their learning goals. Consultants also help faculty gather and
analyze formative data early in a course so they can gauge what is
working well and address what is problematic; consultants can help
analyze and act on end-of-course student evaluations as well.
Most programs also offer workshops, which can be more re-
source efficient than individual consultations. These workshops
may focus on a wide range of topics, such as systematically design-
ing courses, creating active learning opportunities, designing effec-
tive grading procedures, understanding how students learn, and
using instructional technology effectively-in essence, sharing in-
formation and showing the realm of possibilities. Some programs
offer consultations or workshops focused on personal development
as
well, recognizing that dealing successfdly with personal issues is
likely to improve work performance. Faculty participants in these
programs receive assistance with issues such as enhancing interper-
sonal skills, maintaining wellness, balancing
work-life-demands,
and life-career planning [65].
During the last decade or so, some directors of faculty develop-
ment programs have felt constrained by programs focused on meet-
ing the needs of individual faculty members,
i.e., those who volun-
tarily spent time and effort on becoming more effective teachers. In
many cases, this was only 20 percent or so of the faculty. As an alter-
native, some programs directors have turned to one or both of the fol-
lowing strategies, usually in addition to traditional approaches.
The first strategy is to link program activities to institutional
initiatives. Rather than asking what individual faculty members
need, these programs take their cues
from institutional initiatives,
e.g., efforts to promote interdisciplinary learning, active learning,
writing across the curriculum, or the use of instructional technology.
They offer workshops or consultations based on these issues and
often get greater faculty participation because there is greater
administrative support and encouragement.
The second strategy is to work with administrators to make effec-
tive teaching and instructional development higher institutional pri-
orities. Some faculty indicate they would like to participate in profes-
sional educational development but, in their view, the institution does
not reward good teaching or learning about teaching
[66]. Faculty
who have this perception
frequently
decide to focus on activities that
are rewarded, such as writing grant proposals, doing research, and
writing for publication. To counter this tendency, some faculty devel-
opers work with chairs, deans, and provosts, encouraging them to re-
examine the institution's infi-astructure (especially the faculty incen-
tive and reward structure) and the way it
affects faculty behavior.
B. Engineering Focused Programs
Engineering is ahead of many other disciplines in efforts to improve
education. During much of the
1990s, there was considerable activity to
improve engineering education. The Engineering Directorate of the
National Science Foundation (NSF)
hnded seven Engineering Edu-
cation
Codtions [67], multi-institutional collaborations that focused
on designing, implementing, and assessing new approaches to under-
graduate education. For example, the Synthesis
Codtion promoted,
among other
dungs, the innovative use of technology, while the SUC-
CEED Coalition offered a coordinated faculty development program.
NSF also
hnded, during this time, the Engineering Education Schol-
ars Workshops, week-long programs aimed at helping new
Ph.D.
graduates transition more easily into teaching [68].
The 1990s also saw the creation of new centers focusing on
engineering education, for example, the Center for Engineering
Learning and Teaching (CELT) at the University of Washington,
Seattle
[69]. This center was one response to meeting the chal-
lenge of improving engineering education through both research
in engineering student learning and faculty development
(by shar-
ing research findings). Others like it exist at the University of Illi-
nois at Urbana-Champaign, Arizona State University, University
of South Carolina, Georgia Institute of Technology, Purdue Uni-
versity, Pennsylvania State University, and the Colorado School
of Mines, to name a few. More recently
(2002), the National
Academy of Engineering created the Center for the Advancement
of Scholarship on Engineering Education (CASEE) to foster a cli-
mate of continuous improvement in engineering education by ex-
tending the research base on engineering education and translating
research results into actual practice in the classroom
[70].
In 2001, the NSF addressed the need to make engineering educa-
tion scholarship more prestigious by announcing the first
Director's
Awards for Distinguished Teaching Scholars, awarding seven faculty
members $300,000 each over four years to continue and expand
their work this field
[71].
Besides these newer programs and centers, we must not forget the
long history of the American Society for Engineering Education
(ASEE), founded
in
1893 to promote and improve engineering educa-
tion
[72]. More recently, the Frontiers in Education conferences
began, also dedicated to promoting the widespread dissemination of
innovation in engineering education
[73].
Suffice it to say that support
for enhancing engineering education goes well beyond college campuses.
Colleges of engineering can excel at teaching and learning when
the majority of their faculty develop and achieve a high level of
188
Journal of Engineering Education
January
2005
